On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:43 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
>> On 01/20/2015 12:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore
>>> wrote:
Ummm, this seems like an inconsistent position. "32-bit x
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 12:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Ummm, this seems like an inconsistent position. "32-bit x86" isn't even
>>> a
>>> new name; it's a restricting adjecti
On 01/20/2015 12:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
Ummm, this seems like an inconsistent position. "32-bit x86" isn't even a
new name; it's a restricting adjective "32-bit" on the existing name "x86".
But "x86-32" isn't an existing real name for a
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since there seems to be arguments against using both "IA-32" and "i386"
>>> for
>>> the 32-bit x86 architecture, how about,
On 01/20/2015 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
Since there seems to be arguments against using both "IA-32" and "i386" for
the 32-bit x86 architecture, how about, uh, "32-bit x86"? With the other
names in parentheses where appropriate? I think
On 1/20/2015 1:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> Ping? Any thoughts?
>> x86 for the family and x86-32/x86-64 for the 2 architectures?
>>
> Works for me.
>
>
Sounds good to me. You can always explain the terms and their relationship
to others in a
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Ping? Any thoughts?
>
> x86 for the family and x86-32/x86-64 for the 2 architectures?
>
Works for me.
--
H.J.
> Ping? Any thoughts?
x86 for the family and x86-32/x86-64 for the 2 architectures?
--
Eric Botcazou
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 08:11 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
At least, IA-32 is clear, although IA-64 may be confusing :-). FWIW,
i386 is also vendor specific.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wikipedia agr
On 01/20/2015 08:11 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
At least, IA-32 is clear, although IA-64 may be confusing :-). FWIW,
i386 is also vendor specific.
Wikipedia agrees [1]:
I wouldn't use a wikipedia article that only cites sources from after 2008
(and
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > At least, IA-32 is clear, although IA-64 may be confusing :-). FWIW,
> > i386 is also vendor specific.
>
> Wikipedia agrees [1]:
I wouldn't use a wikipedia article that only cites sources from after 2008
(and most of them actually after the aft
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> > ia32 is confusing because ia64 (a well known term) sounds related but
>>> > can't be farther away from it, and it's also vendor specific. Our
>>> > traditional i386 seems better to me (although it has its own problems,
>>> > but I'm not aware
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> > ia32 is confusing because ia64 (a well known term) sounds related but
>> > can't be farther away from it, and it's also vendor specific. Our
>> > traditional i386 seems better to me (although
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > ia32 is confusing because ia64 (a well known term) sounds related but
> > can't be farther away from it, and it's also vendor specific. Our
> > traditional i386 seems better to me (although it has its own problems,
> > but I'm not aware of any bette
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
>> > I'd be happy to work on a patch to bring the manual to using a common
>> > naming convention, but what should it be? Wikipedia seems to use
>> > "x86" (lowercase) to refer to the ent
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > I'd be happy to work on a patch to bring the manual to using a common
> > naming convention, but what should it be? Wikipedia seems to use
> > "x86" (lowercase) to refer to the entire family of architectures
> > (including the original 16-b
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
>
>>> I've noticed that the GCC user documentation is quite inconsistent about
>>> the name(s) it uses for i386/x86-64/etc targets. invoke.texi has a
>>> section for "i386 and x86-64
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
>> I've noticed that the GCC user documentation is quite inconsistent about
>> the name(s) it uses for i386/x86-64/etc targets. invoke.texi has a
>> section for "i386 and x86-64 Options", but in other places the manual
>> uses x86, X86, i?
On 01/01/2015 05:30 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I've noticed that the GCC user documentation is quite inconsistent about
the name(s) it uses for i386/x86-64/etc targets. invoke.texi has a
section for "i386 and x86-64 Options", but in other places the manual
uses x86, X86, i?86, i[34567]86, x86_6
19 matches
Mail list logo
